CoC [Final]
Hello,
O.k. so I let every thing sit with V7 for several days and we have
received no further feedback. I believe we have reached a point where we
can reasonably consider this Final or at least Final Draft.
This final draft incorporates all reasonable feedback I have received as
well as rewriting it in a more conversational tone from Kevin Grittner's
efforts.
== PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) ==
This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful,
productive, and collaborative place for any person who is willing to
contribute to the PostgreSQL community. It applies to all "collaborative
space", which is defined as community communications channels (such as
mailing lists, IRC, submitted patches, commit comments, etc.).
* We are tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views.
* Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.
* When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
should always assume good intentions.
* Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a
pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be
tolerated.
Sincerely,
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
* Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a
pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be
tolerated.
Personally, I was comfortable with the rest of it, but this one
made me squirm a little. Could we spin that to say that those
behaviors will not be tolerated, versus not tolerating the people?
Maybe:
* Disruption of the collaborative space or any pattern of
behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be
tolerated.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
This final draft incorporates all reasonable feedback I have received as
well as rewriting it in a more conversational tone from Kevin Grittner's
efforts.
Looks great to me. Thanks for all your efforts in this.
- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201601181316
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iEYEAREDAAYFAladLAkACgkQvJuQZxSWSsjOZwCgqKxe5Uw9ujJIwCzWj4YHfVm9
etQAmwa1R5P8iPONXCgV9OMDiAaaTu/5
=awgH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On 01/18/2016 10:15 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
* Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a
pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be
tolerated.Personally, I was comfortable with the rest of it, but this one
made me squirm a little. Could we spin that to say that those
behaviors will not be tolerated, versus not tolerating the people?
Maybe:* Disruption of the collaborative space or any pattern of
behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be
tolerated.
No argument from me. I think they both service the same gist.
Sincerely,
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:02:33AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
O.k. so I let every thing sit with V7 for several days and we have received
no further feedback. I believe we have reached a point where we can
reasonably consider this Final or at least Final Draft.
While the verbiage seems OK with me -- has there been
consensus as to whether we actually want/need a CoC ?
Thanks,
Karsten Hilbert
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On 01/18/2016 10:38 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:02:33AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
O.k. so I let every thing sit with V7 for several days and we have received
no further feedback. I believe we have reached a point where we can
reasonably consider this Final or at least Final Draft.While the verbiage seems OK with me -- has there been
consensus as to whether we actually want/need a CoC ?
I believe this question is answered in the various threads.
Sincerely,
JD
Thanks,
Karsten Hilbert
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On 18/01/2016 19:36, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 01/18/2016 10:15 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
* Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a
pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be
tolerated.Personally, I was comfortable with the rest of it, but this one
made me squirm a little. Could we spin that to say that those
behaviors will not be tolerated, versus not tolerating the people?
Maybe:* Disruption of the collaborative space or any pattern of
behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be
tolerated.No argument from me. I think they both service the same gist.
Sincerely,
JD
I would also vote in favour of not tolerating the behaviour. I guess it would
be less open to critics than saying a participant is not tolerated...
--
Stéphane Schildknecht
Contact régional PostgreSQL pour l'Europe francophone
Loxodata - Conseil, expertise et formations
06.17.11.37.42
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 10:02:33 -0800
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
* Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in
a pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not
be tolerated.
This one might come back to bite you. I, along with probably twenty
others, "disrupted the collaborative space" on the Debian-User mailing
list during the Systemd Civil War, and I'd do it over again because of
the technological and practical importance of preserving an alternative
to systemd. I'd even like to believe that in a small way I helped
recruit more people to the Devuan (Debian Fork) project.
My posting rights were removed, basically, for "disrupting the
collaborative space", and that's fine: Guilty as charged. But here's
the thing: The list was moderated by a systemd advocate, who let the
pro-systemd fanatics disrupt the collaborative space to their hearts'
content with only the mildest wrist slaps, while removing posting
rights of several anti-systemd people.
"Disrupting the collaborative space" is very hard to define even when
nobody has an agenda. When there are agendas, it almost certainly will
lead to selective enforcement.
Be careful what you wish for :-)
SteveT
Steve Litt
January 2016 featured book: Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
http://www.troubleshooters.com/28
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
* Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in
a pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not
be tolerated.
Perhaps changing the ", or participate" to " by engaging" would make
that statement more focused.
"Disrupting the collaborative space" is very hard to define even when
nobody has an agenda. When there are agendas, it almost certainly will
lead to selective enforcement.
PHP is currently going through a CoC discussion as well. Paul Jones
has a good blog post on the dangers of CoC's and their abuse.
http://paul-m-jones.com/archives/6214
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On 20 January 2016 at 15:19, Brian Dunavant <brian@omniti.com> wrote:
* Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in
a pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not
be tolerated.Perhaps changing the ", or participate" to " by engaging" would make
that statement more focused.
Well yes, it makes it more focussed, but also completely changes the meaning.
I could have got it wrong, but as I understood it the intention was
that disrupting the collaborative space by other means (say, by
posting multiple threads about something about which the majority have
no interest to a mailing list where it might reasonably be considered
offtopic, and telling anyone who complains that they can "just ignore
them"?) would also not be tolerated.
But maybe I'm just being facetious :)
Geoff
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On 18 January 2016 at 18:02, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
O.k. so I let every thing sit with V7 for several days and we have
received no further feedback. I believe we have reached a point where we
can reasonably consider this Final or at least Final Draft.This final draft incorporates all reasonable feedback I have received as
well as rewriting it in a more conversational tone from Kevin Grittner's
efforts.== PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) ==
This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful,
productive, and collaborative place for any person who is willing to
contribute to the PostgreSQL community. It applies to all "collaborative
space", which is defined as community communications channels (such as
mailing lists, IRC, submitted patches, commit comments, etc.).* We are tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views.
* Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.* When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
should always assume good intentions.* Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a
pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be
tolerated.
I think this is well intentioned. All new laws should be subject to
scrutiny as to how they will be applied and who will apply them.
There are difficulties here and I'm of the opinion it will have the
opposite effect to its intention.
Person1: "I'd like you to stop doing that, it has bad effects"
(Lets assume that something bad has actually happened, enacted by Person 2)
Person2: "But everything I do is for the common good." - now anything that
is said further violates point 3, straying near point 2.
Any attempt by Person1 to carry on the discussion until a reasonable
outcome is achieved also violates point 4.
So even though Person2 has done something bad, Person1 is unable to discuss
this without being sanctioned.
My observation is this isn't just a set of rules for behaviour, its a set
of rules that controls people's ability to object, which is dangerous and
would not be in the longer term interests of the community.
I suggest we remove point 3 entirely. Point 2 is sufficient to limit what
is said.
Who will decide how this code is enacted? Rules imply rulers, so what is
the constitution of the governing body?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 18 January 2016 at 18:02, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
* We are tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views.
* Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.* When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
should always assume good intentions.* Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a
pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be
tolerated.
I suggest we remove point 3 entirely. Point 2 is sufficient to limit what is
said.
That came about because of the point made by someone for whom
English is a second language, who attempted to complement someone
by saying the work was "gross" (meaning "a big thing"), when that
was initially taken as an insult (thinking "disgusting" was meant).
Perhaps it belongs more in the preamble or could be omitted, but
it was an attempt to recognize that simple miscommunication due to
language or cultural differences can turn into flame wars if people
don't give each other some benefit of the doubt.
Who will decide how this code is enacted? Rules imply rulers, so what is the
constitution of the governing body?
It has been stated several times on this thread by multiple people
that we should settle on the code to implement before talking about
enforcement processes.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:05:15PM -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
* When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
should always assume good intentions.
...
That came about because of the point made by someone for whom
English is a second language, who attempted to complement someone
by saying the work was "gross" (meaning "a big thing"), when that
was initially taken as an insult (thinking "disgusting" was meant).
Perhaps it belongs more in the preamble or could be omitted, but
it was an attempt to recognize that simple miscommunication due to
language or cultural differences can turn into flame wars if people
don't give each other some benefit of the doubt.
* When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
should always consider the possibility of misunderstandings.
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On 20 January 2016 at 19:05, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
wrote:On 18 January 2016 at 18:02, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
wrote:
* We are tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views.
* Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.* When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
should always assume good intentions.* Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a
pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be
tolerated.I suggest we remove point 3 entirely. Point 2 is sufficient to limit
what is
said.
That came about because of the point made by someone for whom
English is a second language, who attempted to complement someone
by saying the work was "gross" (meaning "a big thing"), when that
was initially taken as an insult (thinking "disgusting" was meant).
Perhaps it belongs more in the preamble or could be omitted, but
it was an attempt to recognize that simple miscommunication due to
language or cultural differences can turn into flame wars if people
don't give each other some benefit of the doubt.
Which means that anyone who violates point 2 cannot be held to account,
because doing so would violate point 3.
I agree it is a great idea to assume the good intentions of others, but its
a difficult principle to enforce.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 20 January 2016 at 19:14, Karsten Hilbert <Karsten.Hilbert@gmx.net>
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:05:15PM -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
* When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
should always assume good intentions....
That came about because of the point made by someone for whom
English is a second language, who attempted to complement someone
by saying the work was "gross" (meaning "a big thing"), when that
was initially taken as an insult (thinking "disgusting" was meant).
Perhaps it belongs more in the preamble or could be omitted, but
it was an attempt to recognize that simple miscommunication due to
language or cultural differences can turn into flame wars if people
don't give each other some benefit of the doubt.* When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
should always consider the possibility of misunderstandings.
+1
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
== PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) ==
This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful,
productive, and collaborative place for any person who is willing to
contribute to the PostgreSQL community. It applies to all "collaborative
space", which is defined as community communications channels (such as
mailing lists, IRC, submitted patches, commit comments, etc.).
I think the words "collaborative space, which is defined as" can be
omitted completely without loss of meaning; and since it's already
agreed that this CoC only applies to online media; I'd also add the word
"online" there. So
"It applies to all online communication channels (such as ...)".
* We are tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views.
Reading the fine print of this phrase, I think it doesn't really convey
what we want it to convey. "We are tolerant of people that have
opposing views", perhaps, or "We recognize people's right to have
opposing views". My points is that we are not tolerant of _the right_
-- that seems nonsensical to me.
(Merriam Webster defines "tolerant" as "inclined to tolerate", and "to
tolerate" as "2a. to allow to be or to be done without prohibition,
hindrance, or contradiction")
However the "we" also seems a bit wrong to me. Who is "we"? In
concordance with the other points, I think this should start
"Participants must be" or something along those lines. If not, the
perhaps this point should be in the preamble instead of being a
bulleted point.
* Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.
There have been no comments to this point on this thread.
Congratulations :-)
* When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
should always assume good intentions.
Karsten Hilbert proposed a different wording for this, +1 for that one.
* Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a
pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be
tolerated.
"which could be considered" is too open-ended. Since this point is
the one and only that can cause enforcement to occur, it should be more
strict as to what it is that will not be tolerated. I'd propose
something like "is widely regarded as harassment" or something like
that, so that it needs to be clear that there is a large group of people
that considers the behavior unwanted rather than some minority.
I also agree that what we don't tolerate is the behavior, not the person
engaging in the behavior. Regarding mailing list misbehavior, for
instance, I would think that this means that that person's post would be
moderated (and each post would only be approved if it has no personal
attacks, etc) instead of the person being completely banned from a list.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On 20 January 2016 at 20:04, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
"which could be considered" is too open-ended. Since this point is
the one and only that can cause enforcement to occur, it should be more
strict as to what it is that will not be tolerated. I'd propose
something like "is widely regarded as harassment" or something like
that, so that it needs to be clear that there is a large group of people
that considers the behavior unwanted rather than some minority.
The problem with _that_ is that on the internet of 3 billion people "a
large group of people" can be whipped up from a tiny minority.
Geoff
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@geoff.dj>
wrote:
On 20 January 2016 at 20:04, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
wrote:"which could be considered" is too open-ended. Since this point is
the one and only that can cause enforcement to occur, it should be more
strict as to what it is that will not be tolerated. I'd propose
something like "is widely regarded as harassment" or something like
that, so that it needs to be clear that there is a large group of people
that considers the behavior unwanted rather than some minority.The problem with _that_ is that on the internet of 3 billion people "a
large group of people" can be whipped up from a tiny minority.
At the end of the day this will require human judgment rather than
formulation.
Human judgment may be flawed but in a culturally diverse group it is far
better than the alternative.
Geoff
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more
On 21 January 2016 at 10:37, Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> wrote:
At the end of the day this will require human judgment rather than
formulation.
Then make it explicit.
* Disruption of the collaborative space, or patterns of behaviour
which the majority of the core team consider to be harassment, will
not be tolerated.
(I've depersonalised the sentence also, to make it clear that it's the
action and not the actor that is not tolerated)
Human judgment may be flawed but in a culturally diverse group it is far
better than the alternative.
It's better to let the baying crowd decide your fate rather than
codifying acceptable behaviour?
The Dark Ages called, they want their Justice model back :)
Geoff
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@geoff.dj>
wrote:
On 21 January 2016 at 10:37, Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com>
wrote:At the end of the day this will require human judgment rather than
formulation.Then make it explicit.
* Disruption of the collaborative space, or patterns of behaviour
which the majority of the core team consider to be harassment, will
not be tolerated.(I've depersonalised the sentence also, to make it clear that it's the
action and not the actor that is not tolerated)Human judgment may be flawed but in a culturally diverse group it is far
better than the alternative.It's better to let the baying crowd decide your fate rather than
codifying acceptable behaviour?The Dark Ages called, they want their Justice model back :)
Resisting the urge to talk about how justice was actually seen in the Dark
Ages....
But seriously, I think human judgment is better than a code which those who
want to cause problems can and will use as a weapon against the rest.
Geoff
--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more